Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
D List = the gulf states.. either they're whales or they're damn fine..
but mostly whales.
no middle ground AT ALL
This is complete bullshit fearmongering thrust upon you on the assumption that you'll be too damned lazy to go and find out what the thing actually says. You know how you can tell reporting is shitty reporting? When it links to the fucking wikipedia page for the Copyright Act rather than the actual bill itself: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516
Moreover, saying "about to pass" is complete and utter bullshit. The thing is in first reading. It's not even close to being passed.
Stupid people raising hell about nonsense. Here is what I assume is the section he's upset about:
(2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person to provide, by means of the Internet or another digital network, a service that the person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.
(2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider
(a) whether the person expressly or implic- itly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;
(c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;
(e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and
(f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.
Yeah that's pure evil.
The best part is it says things like "no pvr", "no ripping a cd to your ipod", when the bill specifically says that doing those things (reproduction for private use and recording programs for later viewing) as long as you get the original legally and you don't give it away to other people. Basically, the author is a liar.
